The FIA have updated the sporting code in order to incorporate new rules for obtaining a superlicence.And while the idea in itself is OK, the execution is poor and the level of favoritism is beyond stupid.

The system seems drawn up in a few categories:1) FIA-mandated series are overvalued (non-existing F2, F3 euro)2) FIA-linked series are in the mid (GP2, GP3)3) Other series are undervalued (notably Renault racing series)

How else can one explain the fact that Formula Renault 3.5 is worth LESS than the F3 Euro championship? That FR2.0 is valued less than national F3 and even F4 series?

Being F3 Euro champion is enough to get a superlicence. In contrast, winning FR2.0 and FR3.5 on the bounce won't net you enough points for F1!

This is a major blow for the Renault racing series. Every driver will now prefer taking part in F3 and/or GP3, followed by GP2. Quality of the field will suffer immensely.

But not only that, this is also a hard situation for Red Bull's young driver programme. They can't bank on their normal route of FR2.0 > FR3.5, they will have to pass through either GP3 and/or GP2. The route via FR3.5 seems useless and that means they will have to leave their engine partner in the cold with their racing series.

To add a point in case: Robin Frijns, one of the most promising junior drivers ever to be in single seaters, would NOT qualify for a superlicence in this system despite winning Formula BMW, FR2.0 and FR3.5 back to back.

Its ludicrous. Playing politics with junior single seaters is not the way to go at all, 3.5's alumni of the last 4/5 seasons has been much more impressive as that of GP2. This could seriously mess some career's around.

It just reinforces the points I made in the engine thread. The FIA seem very amateurish in how they go about creating the rules these days. Often they are very poorly thought out, with little thought for any potential negative consequences, and even more poorly executed.

The idea seems neat, but the points distribution makes absolutely no sense. I got a feeling in practice we still will see a lot of conditional licenses. Most of F1 teams needs money and drivers bring a lot of money with them. The issue is that they aren't always the best in junior series.

The idea behind the system isn't that bad actually; It will give more value to good junior careers and may lower the number of average pay-drivers in Formula 1. The execution is poor however, the system is heavily skewed towards GP2, GP3 and the non-existent Formula 2 championship.

The idea behind the system isn't that bad actually; It will give more value to good junior careers and may lower the number of average pay-drivers in Formula 1. The execution is poor however, the system is heavily skewed towards GP2, GP3 and the non-existent Formula 2 championship.

It makes complete sense for the FIA though. Now all the best drivers and their sponsors will be lining up outside their door, making the FIA series stronger, bringing in more attention and money. It's the FIA monopolising. It's terrible news for FR and probably racing in general, but it's a good business move from the FIA. Bästards.

The idea behind the system isn't that bad actually; It will give more value to good junior careers and may lower the number of average pay-drivers in Formula 1. The execution is poor however, the system is heavily skewed towards GP2, GP3 and the non-existent Formula 2 championship.

GP2 is the top junior class so you confuse me there

For the last several years the quality of the drivers at the top of FR3.5 has been on par with those at the top of GP2 yet this system puts FR3.5 on par with GP3 and winning FR2.0 equal to 6th in GP3.

The FIA have been trying to reorganise the junior formulae for quite a while now. Gerhard Berger was appointed in a head of development role a few years back, but recently left it. I remember him saying that the junior 'ladder' is too messy, and it's difficult for teams' to know who is really the best driver as they aren't competing against each other.

The 'ladder' used to be pretty simple - Formula Ford - Formula 3 - Formula 3000 - Formula 1 (with various national and International series') . These were all, I think, FIA sanctioned and were all geared towards preparing drivers for the next step in their careers. At least that's how I perceived it.Nowadays there are dozens of categories, with car performance levels that vary drastically.

It looks like the new system could be a way of promoting certain series', so that drivers/teams are forced to enter them if they want to further their careers along the FIA-approved path into F1. While that is unfair to teams, drivers, sponsors and series organisers, I expect that in the board room it is seen as a step towards clarifying the 'ladder'.

I've produced a league table for the 2015 drivers based on the number of points they would have had on their debut:Lewis Hamilton 100Nico Hulkenburg 90Valtteri Bottas 70Pastor Maldonado 68Nico Rosberg 63Romain Grosjean 60 (70 on 2012 return)Felipe Nasr 52Sergio Perez 42Daniil Kvyat 42---- ALL BELOW HERE FAIL THE FIA CRITERIA ---Daniel Ricciardo 38Sebastian Vettel 38 (45 in 2008)Carlos Sainz Jr. 32Fernando Alonso 20Max Verstappen 20Jenson Button 15Marcus Ericcson 14Felipe Massa 5Kimi Raikonnen 0Most of the drivers that score lower than expected have been let down by the FIA's low regard of the Formula Renault categories. It's also a tad unfair on the older drivers as many raced in competitions that don't exist/aren't relevant anymore (although where possible I converted to an obvious equivalent e.g. Formula 3000 = GP2).

Of the 9 race winner we have going into 2015, we lose 6. Of the 5 WDC, we lose 4.

It's as if F1 has put a lock on it's door, and is only giving it's own series the key. It's smart from their POV, but I don't see what good it does long term for F1. All it does is place more competition for spaces in "FIA approved" racing series, meaning less opportunity for talent to get through.

Also after reading through some of the articles, it seems that under these new rules, the most successful driver in the history of F1, may not have obtained a super-license to compete in F1 for his comeback. Also, it notably stops Susie Wolff from getting a super-license.

Also after reading through some of the articles, it seems that under these new rules, the most successful driver in the history of F1, may not have obtained a super-license to compete in F1 for his comeback. Also, it notably stops Susie Wolff from getting a super-license.

It would rule out Kubica for a return if he would be fit again (which was unlikely to begin with). It would have prevented him of debuting as well.

Also after reading through some of the articles, it seems that under these new rules, the most successful driver in the history of F1, may not have obtained a super-license to compete in F1 for his comeback. Also, it notably stops Susie Wolff from getting a super-license.

It would rule out Kubica for a return if he would be fit again (which was unlikely to begin with). It would have prevented him of debuting as well.

and Barrichello (I've probably botched the hell out of his name)

I have a feeling the FIA will rewrite this rule pretty soon. It's very poorly worded atm even for the FIA standards.

Also after reading through some of the articles, it seems that under these new rules, the most successful driver in the history of F1, may not have obtained a super-license to compete in F1 for his comeback. Also, it notably stops Susie Wolff from getting a super-license.

It would rule out Kubica for a return if he would be fit again (which was unlikely to begin with). It would have prevented him of debuting as well.

and Barrichello (I've probably botched the hell out of his name)

I have a feeling the FIA will rewrite this rule pretty soon. It's very poorly worded atm even for the FIA standards.

How long is a super licence valid for, though? Does it have to be renewed every year, or once it's granted does it last for x years? It does seem strange that this would effectively prevent any driver from making a comeback and makes a sabbatical a dangerous choice. Would Kimi have qualified?

Also after reading through some of the articles, it seems that under these new rules, the most successful driver in the history of F1, may not have obtained a super-license to compete in F1 for his comeback. Also, it notably stops Susie Wolff from getting a super-license.

It would rule out Kubica for a return if he would be fit again (which was unlikely to begin with). It would have prevented him of debuting as well.

and Barrichello (I've probably botched the hell out of his name)

I have a feeling the FIA will rewrite this rule pretty soon. It's very poorly worded atm even for the FIA standards.

How long is a super licence valid for, though? Does it have to be renewed every year, or once it's granted does it last for x years? It does seem strange that this would effectively prevent any driver from making a comeback and makes a sabbatical a dangerous choice. Would Kimi have qualified?

Kimi wouldn't have debuted. He won national FR2.0, which isn't even eligible for points.Former F1 drivers are OK if they have raced 5 races in the previous year or 15 in the previous 3. Schumacher would not have qualified for an SL in 2010. Raikkonen would have in 2012.

How long is a super licence valid for, though? Does it have to be renewed every year, or once it's granted does it last for x years? It does seem strange that this would effectively prevent any driver from making a comeback and makes a sabbatical a dangerous choice. Would Kimi have qualified?

Kimi wouldn't have debuted. He won national FR2.0, which isn't even eligible for points.Former F1 drivers are OK if they have raced 5 races in the previous year or 15 in the previous 3. Schumacher would not have qualified for an SL in 2010. Raikkonen would have in 2012.

be judged by the FIA to have consistently demonstrated outstanding ability in single-seater formula cars, but with no opportunity to qualify under any of c) to e) above. In this case the F1 team concerned must show that the applicant has driven at least 300 km in a current Formula One car consistently at racing speeds, over a maximum period of 2 days, completed not more than 90 days prior to the application and certified by the ASN of the country in which the test took place

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this give the FIA the ability to grant people like Schumacher in 2010 SL's?

Stoneman you are right about he falls short by 5 points although the FIA could perhaps give him something for his F2 title. I think the FIA will probably fly lose with defunct series and probably give people some wiggle room.

Regallia has 40 points for the exact same reason as Wehrlein

Abt finished 2nd in GP2 and 2nd in national F3

And Wickens won GP3 and Formula Renault 3.5.

Although now I have just seen that drivers must accumulate these points in the three years preceding an application. Which is totally bannanas, unless you can apply for a super licence even if you will not be racing in F1 for the coming season.

How long is a super licence valid for, though? Does it have to be renewed every year, or once it's granted does it last for x years? It does seem strange that this would effectively prevent any driver from making a comeback and makes a sabbatical a dangerous choice. Would Kimi have qualified?

Kimi wouldn't have debuted. He won national FR2.0, which isn't even eligible for points.Former F1 drivers are OK if they have raced 5 races in the previous year or 15 in the previous 3. Schumacher would not have qualified for an SL in 2010. Raikkonen would have in 2012.

be judged by the FIA to have consistently demonstrated outstanding ability in single-seater formula cars, but with no opportunity to qualify under any of c) to e) above. In this case the F1 team concerned must show that the applicant has driven at least 300 km in a current Formula One car consistently at racing speeds, over a maximum period of 2 days, completed not more than 90 days prior to the application and certified by the ASN of the country in which the test took place

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this give the FIA the ability to grant people like Schumacher in 2010 SL's?

Stoneman you are right about he falls short by 5 points although the FIA could perhaps give him something for his F2 title. I think the FIA will probably fly lose with defunct series and probably give people some wiggle room.

Regallia has 40 points for the exact same reason as Wehrlein

Abt finished 2nd in GP2 and 2nd in national F3

And Wickens won GP3 and Formula Renault 3.5.

OK, Wehrlein you have a point although I'm not sure whether the partly-overlapping F3 Euroseries and the European F3 would count separately.Stoneman falls short by 20 points (second in GP3 2014 is the only that counts as far as I see).Regalia has 22 points - European F3 Open counts as a national series.Abt was second in GP3, so only 20 points.And Wickens was too long ago, as you have already noticed.

Stoneman you are right about he falls short by 5 points although the FIA could perhaps give him something for his F2 title. I think the FIA will probably fly lose with defunct series and probably give people some wiggle room.

Regallia has 40 points for the exact same reason as Wehrlein

Abt finished 2nd in GP2 and 2nd in national F3

And Wickens won GP3 and Formula Renault 3.5.

OK, Wehrlein you have a point although I'm not sure whether the partly-overlapping F3 Euroseries and the European F3 would count separately.Stoneman falls short by 20 points (second in GP3 2014 is the only that counts as far as I see).Regalia has 22 points - European F3 Open counts as a national series.Abt was second in GP3, so only 20 points.And Wickens was too long ago, as you have already noticed.

To be honest if you look through my list a few will fail due to time by the end of this season.

It seems unfair at first glance, but what the FIA may be looking for is drivers progressing through the various series in an orderly fashion - i.e., drivers go from karts to 5 point series, then to 10 point series, then to 30 point series and finally into the higher point series. That way you ensure a certain level of experience where even the greatest talent can gain. Jumping series, say from 10 to 60 would occur only among the most talented and they would still have to finish in a stellar fashion to move on. So it could work assuming it doesn't play out in a hodgepodge manner.

the question I have is what problem are they intending to address with this?

1) Filtering out unskilled pay drivers, in a way that is transparent and fair to everyone

2) With the newer F1 cars being less of a physical challenge to drive, they want to ensure that a driver's maturity and racing qualifications are up to the task of actually getting behind the wheel of an F1 car, reliably and with good performance. The sheer difficulty of physically driving an F1 car used to do that, but the newer cars are getting easier to drive physically, so another way of preventing drivers that may be quick but lacking in other areas from starting too early. Remember, one way to be quick is to never care about the consequences...you can do that for a while, but eventually it will catch up to you - with potentially deadly affects on other drivers or spectators.

These rules make total sense to me, and I applaud them, even the weighting of the series makes sense (being done on how much like F1 the series is, the tracks they use, and the talent pool depth within that series).

Anyone know how many points Formula E would give you under this new system? I understand it's more of an alternative than a junior series, but it must count for something, as they have a field that ranks from F1 level to a few at the back that are GP3.

Anyone know how many points Formula E would give you under this new system? I understand it's more of an alternative than a junior series, but it must count for something, as they have a field that ranks from F1 level to a few at the back that are GP3.

FE, from what I have seen of it, should subtract points from those earned elsewhere.

Anyone know how many points Formula E would give you under this new system? I understand it's more of an alternative than a junior series, but it must count for something, as they have a field that ranks from F1 level to a few at the back that are GP3.

FE, from what I have seen of it, should subtract points from those earned elsewhere.

FE from what I've seen of it is largely drivers who already have a super license!

_________________There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

the question I have is what problem are they intending to address with this?

1) Filtering out unskilled pay drivers, in a way that is transparent and fair to everyone

2) With the newer F1 cars being less of a physical challenge to drive, they want to ensure that a driver's maturity and racing qualifications are up to the task of actually getting behind the wheel of an F1 car, reliably and with good performance. The sheer difficulty of physically driving an F1 car used to do that, but the newer cars are getting easier to drive physically, so another way of preventing drivers that may be quick but lacking in other areas from starting too early. Remember, one way to be quick is to never care about the consequences...you can do that for a while, but eventually it will catch up to you - with potentially deadly affects on other drivers or spectators.

These rules make total sense to me, and I applaud them, even the weighting of the series makes sense (being done on how much like F1 the series is, the tracks they use, and the talent pool depth within that series).

I think the FIA did a good job on these.

I meant in the sense what was the catalyst for it? Looking back over the years it would have stopped Paul DiResta and Charles Pic, but were they ever really an issue? OTOH it would also have prevented Ricciardo from starting when he did, which in retrospect would have left F1 poorer.

the question I have is what problem are they intending to address with this?

1) Filtering out unskilled pay drivers, in a way that is transparent and fair to everyone

2) With the newer F1 cars being less of a physical challenge to drive, they want to ensure that a driver's maturity and racing qualifications are up to the task of actually getting behind the wheel of an F1 car, reliably and with good performance. The sheer difficulty of physically driving an F1 car used to do that, but the newer cars are getting easier to drive physically, so another way of preventing drivers that may be quick but lacking in other areas from starting too early. Remember, one way to be quick is to never care about the consequences...you can do that for a while, but eventually it will catch up to you - with potentially deadly affects on other drivers or spectators.

These rules make total sense to me, and I applaud them, even the weighting of the series makes sense (being done on how much like F1 the series is, the tracks they use, and the talent pool depth within that series).

I think the FIA did a good job on these.

I meant in the sense what was the catalyst for it? Looking back over the years it would have stopped Paul DiResta and Charles Pic, but were they ever really an issue? OTOH it would also have prevented Ricciardo from starting when he did, which in retrospect would have left F1 poorer.

Verstappen

_________________Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig

the question I have is what problem are they intending to address with this?

1) Filtering out unskilled pay drivers, in a way that is transparent and fair to everyone

2) With the newer F1 cars being less of a physical challenge to drive, they want to ensure that a driver's maturity and racing qualifications are up to the task of actually getting behind the wheel of an F1 car, reliably and with good performance. The sheer difficulty of physically driving an F1 car used to do that, but the newer cars are getting easier to drive physically, so another way of preventing drivers that may be quick but lacking in other areas from starting too early. Remember, one way to be quick is to never care about the consequences...you can do that for a while, but eventually it will catch up to you - with potentially deadly affects on other drivers or spectators.

These rules make total sense to me, and I applaud them, even the weighting of the series makes sense (being done on how much like F1 the series is, the tracks they use, and the talent pool depth within that series).

I think the FIA did a good job on these.

I meant in the sense what was the catalyst for it? Looking back over the years it would have stopped Paul DiResta and Charles Pic, but were they ever really an issue? OTOH it would also have prevented Ricciardo from starting when he did, which in retrospect would have left F1 poorer.

Verstappen

they brought out a whole new set of rules just because of Verstappen? Is he even a pay driver?

Nope not a pay driver at all. Verstappen just ruffled a few feathers because of his age and comparative lack of experience. The rules seem more focused on ensuring a minimum number of years in single seat cars than ensuring a minimum level of ability.

I also think rather than preventing pay drivers it might make the situation much much worst. Especially given to how the series are weighted. There will be so much demand for a spot in GP3 and GP2 that only those drivers with the most sponsor backing will get a seat, and it seems that sponsor backing and driver talent rarely correlate. The drivers with the most points will be the ones who bring the most money to their GP teams, and in a few years the only drivers eligible for super licences may well be the pay drivers they are supposed to be trying to keep out.

If Verstappen's experience was the issue, why not introduce it after Raikkonen ruffled feathers? I still think it's the FIA monopolising and using Verstappen as an excuse. I don't think the kid is ready either, but why make the FR series practically worthless? Unless they don't like the Red Bull Driver Program as a whole. Renault can't be happy about this, and considering Red Bull have Renault works deals, it gives Christian Horner another excuse to moan (surprised he hasn't started already).

If Verstappen's experience was the issue, why not introduce it after Raikkonen ruffled feathers? I still think it's the FIA monopolising and using Verstappen as an excuse. I don't think the kid is ready either, but why make the FR series practically worthless? Unless they don't like the Red Bull Driver Program as a whole. Renault can't be happy about this, and considering Red Bull have Renault works deals, it gives Christian Horner another excuse to moan (surprised he hasn't started already).

The way I see it, they want to make FR not worth as much toward a super licence in order to make their own series of GP3 and GP2 higher profile with potentially better drivers and less pay drivers. It may also be because more f1 viewers will watch GP2&3 and are less likely to also watch FR which would possibly make new drivers known to them and they can watch them progress.

I do the whole thing is to promote their own series rather to knock down others.

_________________There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.